Background
Kent C. Noell, doing business as Denton Chiropractic Center, sued Willie R. Jones, Jr. in justice court over unpaid medical bills. Both parties appeared without counsel, and the justice court ruled for Jones. Noell then appealed to the county court at law for a trial de novo and retained counsel.
Noell’s counsel obtained a trial date and served notice through the electronic filing manager at an email address Jones acknowledged was correct. Jones did not appear, and the county court entered judgment for Noell on January 21, 2025. On February 21—31 days after judgment—Jones filed a combined notice of appeal and motion for new trial asserting that he had not received notice of the trial setting. The trial court took no action on the motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 329b, Jones had 30 days after the judgment was signed to file a motion for new trial, and that deadline could not be extended. Because he filed on the 31st day, the motion was untimely and the trial court lacked authority to act on it.
The court also held that it could not consider Jones’s lack-of-notice complaint on appeal. The certificate of service constituted prima facie evidence of electronic service and created a presumption that Jones received notice. Jones needed to rebut that presumption with evidence presented through a timely motion for new trial, but his untimely motion did not preserve the issue for appellate review. After the new-trial deadline expired, the available procedure for pursuing a claim of nonreceipt was a bill of review.
Key Takeaways
- A motion for new trial must be filed within 30 days after the judgment is signed, and the deadline cannot be extended.
- A certificate of service creates a rebuttable presumption that electronically served notice was received.
- A party challenging a post-answer default judgment based on lack of trial notice must preserve the complaint through a timely motion for new trial; after that deadline, the party must proceed by bill of review.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that even a potentially significant lack-of-notice claim cannot be reviewed through an untimely motion for new trial. Litigants must act within the 30-day deadline and present evidence rebutting the presumption created by a certificate of service.
For attorneys handling post-answer defaults, the opinion also highlights the distinction between the timeliness of an appeal and preservation of the underlying complaint. Although Jones adequately explained his late notice of appeal, that did not cure his failure to file a timely motion for new trial.